The Lanham Act is the main federal trademark law in the United States. Enacted on July 5, 1946, and codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., it created the federal trademark registration system and lets businesses sue in federal court for trademark infringement, false advertising, dilution of famous marks, and cybersquatting. It also sets out the remedies available, including injunctions, profits, damages, and in some cases attorney fees.

If you own a brand, sell online, or advertise against competitors, the Lanham Act shapes your rights and your risks. This plain-English guide walks through what the Act does, its most important sections, and the Supreme Court decisions that have defined it in recent years.

A Brief History of the Lanham Act

Formally titled the Trademark Act of 1946, the Lanham Act was enacted as the Act of July 5, 1946, ch. 540, 60 Stat. 427, and took effect one year later, on July 5, 1947. The Act created a unified national registration system, administered today by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and gave trademark owners federal causes of action. Congress has amended it many times since, adding protection against dilution and cybersquatting and, more recently, the changes made by the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020.

What the Lanham Act Does

At a high level, the Act does five things:

• Establishes federal trademark registration and the rules for obtaining, maintaining, and cancelling registrations
• Prohibits infringement of registered marks
• Prohibits false designations of origin and false advertising, including where the mark is unregistered
• Protects famous marks against dilution and trademark owners against cybersquatting
• Provides remedies, including injunctions, monetary recovery, and attorney fees in exceptional cases

Federal Trademark Registration (15 U.S.C. § 1051)

Section 1 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, lets the owner of a mark apply to register it on the Principal Register. An applicant can file based on current use of the mark in commerce under § 1051(a), or based on a bona fide intention to use the mark under § 1051(b). An intent-to-use application does not mature into a registration until the applicant files a verified statement that the mark is in use.

Registration is not required to have trademark rights, but it carries significant advantages. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1072, registration on the Principal Register is constructive notice of the registrant’s claim of ownership. Under § 1111, a registrant may use the ® symbol, and a registrant who fails to give that notice cannot recover profits or damages from an infringer who lacked actual notice of the registration.

Trademark Infringement (Section 32, 15 U.S.C. § 1114)

Section 32 is the Act’s infringement provision for registered marks. It makes liable a person who, without the registrant’s consent, uses in commerce “any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark” in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services where that use “is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.”

The core question in most cases is likelihood of confusion. Courts weigh factors such as the similarity of the marks, the relatedness of the goods or services, evidence of actual confusion, marketing channels, and the defendant’s intent. Our guide to trademark infringement and how to fight it covers these issues in more detail.

False Designation of Origin and False Advertising (Section 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))

Section 43(a) reaches beyond registered marks. It has two main prongs:

• False association or false designation of origin under § 1125(a)(1)(A): using a word, name, symbol, or false designation of origin that is likely to cause confusion as to the affiliation, connection, or association of one person with another, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of goods, services, or commercial activities.
• False advertising under § 1125(a)(1)(B): commercial advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of goods, services, or commercial activities.

Because § 43(a) does not require a registration, it is the usual route for owners of unregistered marks and trade dress. In Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992), for example, the Supreme Court held that inherently distinctive trade dress is protectable under § 43(a) without proof of secondary meaning. If a competitor is making false claims about its products or yours, see our article on whether you can sue for false advertising under the Lanham Act.

Trademark Dilution (Section 43(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c))

Dilution protects only famous marks. Section 43(c) allows the owner of a famous mark to obtain an injunction against another person’s use that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, competition, or actual economic injury. Blurring weakens the distinctiveness of a famous mark, while tarnishment harms its reputation. For a closer look, read our explanation of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act.

Cybersquatting (Section 43(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d))

Section 43(d) targets anyone who registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive mark, or dilutive of a famous mark, with a bad faith intent to profit from that mark. Remedies can include forfeiture, cancellation, or transfer of the domain name, as well as statutory damages. Our article on what cybersquatting is and what to do about it explains how these claims work.

Remedies Under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1116–1117)

A successful plaintiff may obtain several kinds of relief:

• Injunctions (§ 1116). Courts may grant injunctions according to principles of equity. Since the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020, a plaintiff is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm upon a finding of a violation (for a permanent injunction) or a likelihood of success on the merits (for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order).
• Profits, damages, and costs (§ 1117(a)). Subject to principles of equity, a plaintiff may recover the defendant’s profits, the plaintiff’s damages, and the costs of the action. The court may enter judgment for up to three times actual damages and may award reasonable attorney fees in exceptional cases.
• Counterfeiting (§ 1117(b)–(c)). For intentional use of a counterfeit mark, the court generally must award three times profits or damages, whichever is greater, plus a reasonable attorney fee, absent extenuating circumstances. Alternatively, a plaintiff may elect statutory damages of not less than $1,000 or more than $200,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services, or up to $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services if the use was willful.
• Cybersquatting statutory damages (§ 1117(d)). A plaintiff may elect statutory damages of not less than $1,000 and not more than $100,000 per domain name, as the court considers just.

The Act also allows cancellation of registrations under 15 U.S.C. § 1064, including at any time if a registered mark becomes the generic name for the goods or services it covers.

Key Supreme Court Decisions Interpreting the Lanham Act

Several recent Supreme Court decisions have reshaped how the Act applies:

• Matal v. Tam (2017). The Court unanimously held that the Act’s bar on registering disparaging marks violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The case involved the band name THE SLANTS, and we discussed it in our analysis of Matal v. Tam.
• Iancu v. Brunetti (2019). The Court held that the bar on registering “immoral or scandalous” marks also violates the First Amendment because it discriminates on the basis of viewpoint.
• USPTO v. Booking.com B.V. (2020). The Court held that a “generic.com” term is not automatically generic. The answer depends on whether consumers perceive the term as the name of a class of services or as a term that distinguishes among members of the class.
• Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC (2023). In a unanimous decision involving a dog toy that parodied a Jack Daniel’s bottle, the Court held that the Rogers First Amendment test does not apply when the defendant uses a mark as a designation of source for its own goods, and that the Act’s noncommercial-use exclusion from dilution liability does not shield parody used as a designation of source.
• Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. (2023). The Court held that §§ 1114(1)(a) and 1125(a)(1) are not extraterritorial and reach only infringing use in commerce that is domestic. Our article on the Lanham Act’s international reach explores what that means for cross-border disputes.
• Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. (2025). The Court unanimously held that an award of the “defendant’s profits” under § 1117(a) covers only the profits of the named defendant, not those of its separately incorporated affiliates.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Lanham Act?

The Lanham Act, formally the Trademark Act of 1946, is the primary federal trademark statute in the United States. Codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., it governs federal trademark registration and creates federal claims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, false advertising, dilution of famous marks, and cybersquatting, along with the remedies for those violations.

What does the Lanham Act protect against?

The Act protects against infringement of registered marks under § 1114, false association and false advertising under § 1125(a), dilution of famous marks by blurring or tarnishment under § 1125(c), and bad faith registration or use of domain names under § 1125(d). It serves both brand owners and businesses harmed by a competitor’s misleading commercial claims.

Does the Lanham Act protect unregistered trademarks?

Yes. Registration provides important advantages, but Section 43(a), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), prohibits false designations of origin and false association likely to cause confusion whether or not a mark is registered. In Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana (1992), the Supreme Court held that inherently distinctive trade dress can be protected under § 43(a) without proof of secondary meaning.

What remedies are available under the Lanham Act?

Remedies include injunctions, with a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm; the defendant’s profits, the plaintiff’s damages, and costs; up to three times actual damages; and attorney fees in exceptional cases. In counterfeiting cases, a plaintiff may elect statutory damages of $1,000 to $200,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services, or up to $2,000,000 if willful.

Does the Lanham Act apply to conduct outside the United States?

In Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. (2023), the Supreme Court held that the Act’s main infringement provisions, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1)(a) and 1125(a)(1), are not extraterritorial. They reach only infringing use in commerce that is domestic, so purely foreign use of a mark generally falls outside those provisions.

Talk to a Trademark Attorney About Your Lanham Act Rights

The Lanham Act gives brand owners strong tools, but using them well requires the right claim, the right evidence, and attention to recent Supreme Court limits on remedies and territorial reach. The same statute can also be used against your business if a competitor believes your branding or advertising crosses the line.

Whether you need to register a mark, stop an infringer, respond to a false advertising claim, or recover a domain name, the trademark attorneys at Revision Legal can help. Contact us through the form on this page or call (855) 473-8474.